Socialist? Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDV0YII6lk&feature=related
Socialist Pigs - Carbon Tax Compensation
- Thread starter bluestorm
- Start date
You don't even pay the carbon tax. The 1000 largest "polluters" will, but obviously business will pass on the costs. These "polluters" include the energy generators, miners, manufacturing companies, etc. Agriculture may be compensated, but the Greens would have then in the "polluter" bucket as well.
Even productive business, employing thousands of people, and driving the economy will be hurt. If not the 1000 large polluters directly, then all the smaller businesses will petrol costs, energy cost, materials costs.
And all for zero effect on the "global warming" rubbish. But Labor and Greens will feel warm as fuzzy that they are saving the planet.
I am mighty confused on the purpose of the carbon tax. Is it:
A. for redistribution to poor people made poorer by the higher cost of goods and services due to the carbon tax.
B. giving to universities and multinationals to entice them to cease with the conspiracy, and give up their secret formulas for cheaper non carbon energy sources.
C. shifting dirty jobs to the third world so they stop sending refugees here.
As others have alluded, I am sure the calculus of redistribution will require lots of progressive arts and law graduates with a penchant for face metal.
A. for redistribution to poor people made poorer by the higher cost of goods and services due to the carbon tax.
B. giving to universities and multinationals to entice them to cease with the conspiracy, and give up their secret formulas for cheaper non carbon energy sources.
C. shifting dirty jobs to the third world so they stop sending refugees here.
As others have alluded, I am sure the calculus of redistribution will require lots of progressive arts and law graduates with a penchant for face metal.
I'm not sure you're all addressing the issue, and are instead using the Labor-Greens government proposal as another grounds for expressing support for an Opposition government. Can I suggest we look at it another way?
The majority of Australians seem to be worried about human-induced global warming, supportive of some sort of governmental action on the issue, and seemingly very disappointed that Labor rolled Rudd to abandon its ETS proposal. (I know I haven't given you figures, but just bear with me anyway.)
Now, this is public opinion: Perhaps uneducated, perhaps misinformed, perhaps deluded as to what if any useful impact it could have, but it's where a lot of voters want to be. Why? Simply identity. People want to see themselves as 'not part of the problem', to be spoken of by others in their community as 'caring for our children's futures', so commonly express support for tentative steps toward action on climate change despite their uncertainty.
Voters though are also producers and consumers, and reflect on their business and living costs most informedly. At this level they react to big new taxes with scorn and derision, worry about their own family's bills, and fret about their own and their friend's business survival. This is people responding at the level of their own immediate interests, and there's nothing whatsoever illegitimate about that in a democracy.
What we have here is a 'big' issue which is pitting two sides of ourselves - as individuals - against each other. One is our concern for the future, which being decidedly unknowable, is largely symbolic and revolves around identity. The other is our concern with the present, which is readily knowable, is about material life and revolves around valid personal interests. The point is, to disregard either completely would be a betrayal of ourselves, and a denial of the fact that in a democracy we are always responsible both for our own present and for our childrens' futures.
Looked at in this way, it's not that either Labor or Liberal are right or wrong, it's that as political party machines they are attempting to capture our vote on this 'big' issue by appealing to the two different 'democratic magnetic poles' that exist within all of us. Jumping onto party-political bandwagons here is not the way for far-sighted and intelligent property investors to behave on such an issue. Leave the simplistic polemics for idiots on political pulpits, and address the complexity of the issue as an informed and informative citizen.
The majority of Australians seem to be worried about human-induced global warming, supportive of some sort of governmental action on the issue, and seemingly very disappointed that Labor rolled Rudd to abandon its ETS proposal. (I know I haven't given you figures, but just bear with me anyway.)
Now, this is public opinion: Perhaps uneducated, perhaps misinformed, perhaps deluded as to what if any useful impact it could have, but it's where a lot of voters want to be. Why? Simply identity. People want to see themselves as 'not part of the problem', to be spoken of by others in their community as 'caring for our children's futures', so commonly express support for tentative steps toward action on climate change despite their uncertainty.
Voters though are also producers and consumers, and reflect on their business and living costs most informedly. At this level they react to big new taxes with scorn and derision, worry about their own family's bills, and fret about their own and their friend's business survival. This is people responding at the level of their own immediate interests, and there's nothing whatsoever illegitimate about that in a democracy.
What we have here is a 'big' issue which is pitting two sides of ourselves - as individuals - against each other. One is our concern for the future, which being decidedly unknowable, is largely symbolic and revolves around identity. The other is our concern with the present, which is readily knowable, is about material life and revolves around valid personal interests. The point is, to disregard either completely would be a betrayal of ourselves, and a denial of the fact that in a democracy we are always responsible both for our own present and for our childrens' futures.
Looked at in this way, it's not that either Labor or Liberal are right or wrong, it's that as political party machines they are attempting to capture our vote on this 'big' issue by appealing to the two different 'democratic magnetic poles' that exist within all of us. Jumping onto party-political bandwagons here is not the way for far-sighted and intelligent property investors to behave on such an issue. Leave the simplistic polemics for idiots on political pulpits, and address the complexity of the issue as an informed and informative citizen.
One thing that gets let through to the keeper with this BS about Carbon is what they are actually talking about.......
They are are talking about....Carbon Dioxide.
Now, I dunno about you, but when I breathe out, I breathe out Carbon Dioxide.
In case you don't know, carbon dioxide is what plants use to produce oxygen.
Has been happenin' for some 50 zillion years or so.
If you believe all this BS they go on with then you really ARE a penguin.
They are are talking about....Carbon Dioxide.
Now, I dunno about you, but when I breathe out, I breathe out Carbon Dioxide.
In case you don't know, carbon dioxide is what plants use to produce oxygen.
Has been happenin' for some 50 zillion years or so.
If you believe all this BS they go on with then you really ARE a penguin.
The theory is that you internalise the negative externality.
If you assume one agrees that carbon is a pollutant and is warming the planet then why should someone who pollutes a lot not pay for it.
By bringing the negative costs into the decision making process of companies and individuals it makes every person consider their actions in the same way you would when you buy anything. It has a cost so one decides is it worth it. If their is no cost to something borne by an individual there is no thought to limiting waste.
The compensation then is a means to allow a transition to such a system.
I have used this example here before but take the example of a smoker. If all smokers got $5000.00 compensation per annum but ciggerette prices tripled you would still see smoking rates decline irrespective that they still have the money to pay for them. They get to make that decision to either spend $45.00 on a pack of smokes or other things.
All that aside, again this does not mean I support us going alone with a carbon tax. In truth though at least the carbon tax does not impose another level of burden on business around counting carbon etc. This appeared to be the way things were heading a few years back...
Yeah, and not many of these religious environmental nuts would also know that CO2 makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere, and that of this 4% is human caused, and 96% is nature.
When they say it's risen 30% in 40yrs, that's from 0.03% to 0.038%. We're all gonna die.
Future generations will be laughing at the absolute stupidity of these current generations.
We'll be heading into a cooling period the next 30yrs, and these drongos still believe in "global warming". Read up on Pacific Decadal Oscillation (a 30-40yr cycle). It's going from a warm phase to a cool phase. The last time it was in cool phase in the 1970's scientist were panicking that the world was heading into another Ice Age. Then it went into a warm phase and suddenly we'll all cook. By 2020, all this "global warming" stupidity will be over thankfully.
Those British and US winters will just get colder now.
As per the famous Time magazine article from 1974.
Another Ige Age?
Pacific Decadal Oscillation Cool Phase 1940-mid1970's, Warm Phase 1970's to about 2001 Cooling Phase next 30-40yrs.
I shake my head at the "Global Warming" hysteria. It's absolute madness.
Notice how they've stopped using "Global Warming" and now use "Climate Change". Because it's no longer actually warming, but "climate change"covers everything. When it starts to cool, they'll say it's "climate change" caused by humans. Just watch this space!!.
Last edited:
They'll be so misinformed and hog washed that you could hit them over the head with a 4x2 repeatedly and they'll think it's good for them.
I didn't read any post but the OP's.
If, by "sick of socialist pigs" you mean "Ocean Architect bought several guns of several calibres cash legit" then yeah. Maybe he's sick of it.
If, by "sick of socialist pigs" you mean "Ocean Architect bought several guns of several calibres cash legit" then yeah. Maybe he's sick of it.
It's also a question of what role Australia sees itself to be in. If we are seen to have implemented policy on the issue, that gives us a certain amount of power to persuade other countries. So, bigger picture, guys.
From what I've seen of other Countries' awareness of Australia, Australians and anything else Aussie - they pretty much have no clue about us, and much less care - unless they have been here as a tourist before.
It'll be a "feel good" thing for us to take this stance and that's about it.
And what will we tell them? "Put a tax on yer Carbon Dioxide everyone!"
Yep.
The only problem with this is that over the last deade - it may actually be the last two decades - the temp has not gone up.
Oh; sorry - it did - apparently .1 of a degree. or was it .01?
Given that it is 3 degrees celsius right now here in Dromana, and in a few months it will reach 40 on the odd day, how would you even know it was .1?
FFS.
You'll know that it's gone up .1 degree because you'll be paying a large amount extra everyday for everything due to the carbon tax, which will remind you that the end of humanity is nigh.
What evidence? There is no evidence.
Totally agree. Two years ago I was in Sacramento, California with a group of mates and we asked some 'leaders' wether they were concerned about climate change. After some blank stares the reply came back "Oh yeah, you have that hole in the ozone thingy down there don't you."
Where's the logic in Aussies being charged $45 a pack to smoke 10 a day, when we're passively inhaling 200 a day from the smoking of other countries; and 50 of those 200 are exported by us?
There are a lot of things to say about a proposed carbon tax, but i'll stick with the two most obvious:
1. Show me proof that the amount of Carbon humans produce affect global warming.
2. Prove that there is such a thing as global warming. A few record temp days here and there proves nothing!
1. Show me proof that the amount of Carbon humans produce affect global warming.
2. Prove that there is such a thing as global warming. A few record temp days here and there proves nothing!
Nice comeback.
The logic is not around the damage done by either, I am talking the phsychology in decision making / economics.
If you make something more expensive and give cash back to the same quantity people will still use less of said product even if they can afford it.
Power I imagine is reasonably inelastic on the demand side which is an issue so only explaining the logic behind a carbon tax, not endorsing it. On the other hand smoking is also fairly inelastic on the demand side and I'd like to think the rise in taxes have turned people away from it.
If it costs a dollar to turn on a light bulb people will do less of it even if they do have the money to pay for it given to them through a rise in the tax freee threshold.
That is how the roundabout of cash is supposed to change behavior. If for example it was instead a cash back based on teh amount of power you used it would do nothing to change the situation. This would be internalising the supposed environmental cost (negative externality) and then externalising it again so nearly useless in changing behavior.
One thing I suspect is lobby groups for families are going to say families should get some relief as I know I use more power in my 4br plus study with three kids than a single on the same income as me in a studio apartment.
I also suspect though this relief will be through the family tax benifits scheme which will leave me high and dry like the $1000.00 handouts and every other helping hand our government puts out there.
Anyway I am not against progressive taxation it just ***** me I seem to miss out by $20.00 on the thresholds they set!
I also suspect though this relief will be through the family tax benifits scheme which will leave me high and dry like the $1000.00 handouts and every other helping hand our government puts out there.
Anyway I am not against progressive taxation it just ***** me I seem to miss out by $20.00 on the thresholds they set!
